[time-nuts] OT: eBay bidding question

[Rex]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:29:38 +0100, "Robert Atkinson"
<robert.atkinson at genetix.com> wrote:

>Hi Rex,
>It's quite simple when you get used to it.
>The list is ordered in bid value, highest at the top.
>If two bids are for the same amount, the one that was placed first takes
>precedence (and wins if they are at the top at auction end).
>This is why bidder 6 is at the top, he bid on the 22nd, before bidder 8
>on the 25th. Bidder numbers are time sequential.
>The other issue is proxy bidding, Bidder 6's bid would only have shown 1
>bid increment (about $10 in this case) above the next lowest bidder
>until his limit was reached ($4000). If he had bid $4000.01 (or bidder 8
>had bid $3999.99) there would have been no confusion. This is why some
>bidders put an odd few pence (cents) at the end of their bid.
>
>HTH.
>Robert.

Yes, I understand the basic principle, but how can we explain the
sequences and what bids remain recorded?

Surely Bidder 1 was alone at the start of bidding. So Bidder 2 outbid
him with a bid of $250 or more. Why did the first bid disappear? Maybe
there was a reserve? Then I guess Bidders 1 and 2 swapped bids. Ok,
those values got saved for some reason. Bidder 3 doesn't show before
bidder 4. Does he become bidder 3 even if he looses to bidder 2? How
come Bidder 6 doesn't show up until the very end? He must have been
involved at some point between bidder 5 on the 21st and bidder 7 on the
23rd. Say bidder 6 had a max bid of 4000 and that's why we see him
winning at the end. Then why does bidder 5 have that string of recorded
bids. Bidder 6 should have won all those bids. 

If bidder 8 places a bid with a max of 4000 on the 25th and then bidder
6 responds with another bid of 4000 he wins because he had a lost bid
earlier. That surely can't be. Or bidder 6 places a max bid of 4000
after 3000 from bidder 5 so he is winning with 3010 then bidder 8 bids a
max of 4000. Bidder 6 wins the tie because he has a history. I guess it
could be, but the recorded date of Apr 22 for the 4k bid would be wrong.

Actually I guess this newish way of listing as bidder 1, 2, ... conveys
more information than if it was just user names.

I'm sure there must be a sequence that explains what is listed but I
can't quite see it all. 

Can anyone propose a sequence of bids on dates that explains this list
of recorded bids and dates? I guess there must be one but it is evading
me.

>
>	*Bidder*    Bid Amount    Date of bid 		
>	Bidder 6    US $4,000.00  Apr-22-07 05:14:15
>	Bidder 8    US $4,000.00  Apr-25-07 00:49:30 
>	Bidder 5    US $3,000.00  Apr-23-07 19:31:08
>	Bidder 5    US $2,900.00  Apr-23-07 19:31:00
>	Bidder 5    US $2,800.00  Apr-23-07 19:30:50
>	Bidder 5    US $2,700.00  Apr-23-07 19:30:42
>	Bidder 5    US $2,500.00  Apr-23-07 19:30:32
>	Bidder 5    US $2,200.00  Apr-23-07 19:30:25
>	Bidder 7    US $2,050.00  Apr-23-07 00:33:36 
>	Bidder 5    US $2,000.00  Apr-21-07 21:21:05
>	Bidder 3    US $1,250.50  Apr-21-07 17:19:52 
>	Bidder 4    US $1,111.00  Apr-21-07 17:38:42 
>	Bidder 2    US   $559.00  Apr-21-07 16:39:08 
>	Bidder 1    US   $365.00  Apr-20-07 21:33:10 
>	Bidder 2    US   $250.00  Apr-21-07 16:38:56 
>